Tail fins for spaceships?

As I put my new Toshiba computer on standby, I noted with pleasure
that the power button, which had a cool blue glow around it when
powered up, turned to a cool yellow glow that periodically brightened
and dimmed. I thought - kewl.

Then, it occurred to me that if we ever build spaceships commercially
they'll be built with the consumer in mind, and will possess a
definite 'cool factor.'

Sure, spacecraft are difficult to build presently, and the fact they
work at all is wonderful - but still, if they're ever built
commercially they will be built as cool as they can be. Which makes
me happy.

So future starships may actually look like TV stage sets just because
those sets are designed to look cool and nothing else.

So, that's gonna be a kick when it happens!

William Mook

In article ,
(william mook) wrote:

As I put my new Toshiba computer on standby, I noted with pleasure
that the power button, which had a cool blue glow around it when
powered up, turned to a cool yellow glow that periodically brightened
and dimmed. I thought - kewl.

So the PC makers have copied that Mac feature, have they? I thought it
might be too small to catch their notice (like the way the mouse cursor
disappears when you start typing so it doesn't obscure your input).

Then, it occurred to me that if we ever build spaceships commercially
they'll be built with the consumer in mind, and will possess a
definite 'cool factor.'

Agreed.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote in message ...
In article ,
(william mook) wrote:

As I put my new Toshiba computer on standby, I noted with pleasure
that the power button, which had a cool blue glow around it when
powered up, turned to a cool yellow glow that periodically brightened
and dimmed. I thought - kewl.

So the PC makers have copied that Mac feature, have they? I thought it
might be too small to catch their notice (like the way the mouse cursor
disappears when you start typing so it doesn't obscure your input).

Then, it occurred to me that if we ever build spaceships commercially
they'll be built with the consumer in mind, and will possess a
definite 'cool factor.'

Agreed.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'


I find that a "form follows function" design that
looks good can often yield the most enduring
kewl factor.

Sometimes form follows function leads to an initally
wierd--but interesting--design. Whether or not it
continues to look wierd or starts to look kewl is
a matter of how well it holds up over time.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

(Len) writes:

Sometimes form follows function leads to an initally
wierd--but interesting--design. Whether or not it
continues to look wierd or starts to look kewl is
a matter of how well it holds up over time.

Look at the final design of the LEM. Weight was the primary concern,
not looks, so it ended up looking more angular, and strange, than the
original concepts that had nice, rounded edges.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(william mook) wrote in message . com...
As I put my new Toshiba computer on standby, I noted with pleasure
that the power button, which had a cool blue glow around it when
powered up, turned to a cool yellow glow that periodically brightened
and dimmed. I thought - kewl.

That is to indicate that it's functioning, it's designed to have at
least two functions, to indicate that it's function and to be as an
attractive visual feature to the user.

Then, it occurred to me that if we ever build spaceships commercially
they'll be built with the consumer in mind, and will possess a
definite 'cool factor.'

Well... Not also commercially, but also for pride and aesthetic
purposes.

If you noticed it, things in the past were designed not only for
functions, but also to make things look good. That's why a vending
machine a century ago looks more like a piece art in comparison of its
current cousin.

Sure, spacecraft are difficult to build presently,

As difficult as building submarines. But the process can be easier if
more submarine building techniques are modified for the use of
building spacecrafts.

and the fact they
work at all is wonderful

Which means that the engineers, the builders, and the operators done a
great job, and also means that the spacecrafts are allowed by God to
work.

- but still, if they're ever built
commercially they will be built as cool as they can be.

Well... If they ever intended to be sold to the mass public instead of
the chosen few. Current millioners can go into orbit probably not due
their buying power, but instead due their political connections
(current space organizations are military or pseudo military
organizations, despite all of their civilian looks).

Which makes
me happy.

Good for you.

So future starships may actually look like TV stage sets just because
those sets are designed to look cool and nothing else.

Well... One could say that Sci-Fi starship concepts are actually
concepts of future starships. Both the ones that were revealed to the
public and the ones that weren't (not even included in one of those
'the making of' materials).

For a bridge of a starship, I recommend using bridge concepts from the
Star Trek franchise. They are quite nice, plus some of the features
that are good in real life, like no windows but instead a viewscreen.

Anyway. It does kinda make one wonder, what if one of the reasons for
the current Enterprise/Star Trek: Enterprise took place as a prequel
(around 150 years before the classic TV series) is to provide a sort
of conceptual designs for future spacecrafts in the near future
(around one century into the future). We do know that it had a close
relationship with the military, and the Enterprise interiors are
designed to look like submarines (they tried to do that with Voyager,
but Voyager was still too advanced). And the Star Trek franchise sure
had a close relationship with many real-life space programs.

So, that's gonna be a kick when it happens!

Heh.

There's one thing that someone once mentioned to me, he said that it
seems that alien designs are more spherical and round (not based on
Sci-Fi designs, but based actual UFO sightings), while human designs
were quite boxy (based current designs).

Which one make wonder, if the Soyuz is an alien design modified into
human use.

Of course, a hybrid of human designs and alien designs probably be
both boxy and spherical.

William Mook

In article ,
EAC wrote:
Sure, spacecraft are difficult to build presently,

As difficult as building submarines. But the process can be easier if
more submarine building techniques are modified for the use of
building spacecrafts.

Current spacecraft are rather harder to build than submarines, because of
one important issue: weight. Spacecraft are far more weight-critical,
and that tends to send the price through the roof. Removal, or at least
drastic easing, of the weight constraint is the big step needed to permit
cheaper large spacecraft.

For a bridge of a starship, I recommend using bridge concepts from the
Star Trek franchise...

Perhaps rather selectively. For example, no sane designer would build the
chairs without lap belts and shoulder harnesses, given the frequency with
which violent events throw people around. (I haven't seen the more recent
ST offshoots, but that was certainly an obvious stupidity early on...)

Which one make wonder, if the Soyuz is an alien design modified into
human use.

Hardly. It's quite similar to some of the rejected concepts for Apollo.
It follows fairly straightforwardly from the key decision to include a
"mission module", in addition to the reentry vehicle, as part of the
pressurized crew space.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"EAC" wrote in message
...

For a bridge of a starship, I recommend using bridge concepts from the
Star Trek franchise. They are quite nice, plus some of the features
that are good in real life, like no windows but instead a viewscreen.

yeah, actually the Navy asked for and got the blueprints for the original
bridge design. It is a very efficient design, with the commanding officer
surrounded by his key personnel in a simple, uncluttered layout.

Anyway. It does kinda make one wonder, what if one of the reasons for
the current Enterprise/Star Trek: Enterprise took place as a prequel
(around 150 years before the classic TV series) is to provide a sort
of conceptual designs for future spacecrafts in the near future
(around one century into the future).

erm, the reason why Enterprise is set 150 years earlier than TOS is because
that was one time period they hadn't mined much in the previous series.
Frankly they're running out of ideas for the ST franchise.

We do know that it had a close
relationship with the military, and the Enterprise interiors are
designed to look like submarines

well, they're designed to look like the lay person's mental image of a
submarine. Hell, may as well come out and say it: the Enterprise sets are
designed to look a lot like the sets for Hunt For Red October.

Actual submarine interiors are a lot more cramped and boring. If you've ever
seen the electrical room of your office building, you get the basic idea,
only with a lot less breathing room.

--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

For a bridge of a starship, I recommend using bridge concepts from the
Star Trek franchise...

Perhaps rather selectively. For example, no sane designer would build the
chairs without lap belts and shoulder harnesses, given the frequency with
which violent events throw people around. (I haven't seen the more recent
ST offshoots, but that was certainly an obvious stupidity early on...)


somebody once asked Joe Pevney, the set designer for the original Star Trek
series, why they didn't give the bridge crew seat belts. His reply: if we
did they wouldn't be able to fall out of their seats!

--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

On 6 Mar 2004 13:24:10 -0800, (EAC) wrote:

(william mook) wrote in message . com...
As I put my new Toshiba computer on standby, I noted with pleasure
that the power button, which had a cool blue glow around it when
powered up, turned to a cool yellow glow that periodically brightened
and dimmed. I thought - kewl.

That is to indicate that it's functioning, it's designed to have at
least two functions, to indicate that it's function and to be as an
attractive visual feature to the user.

Then, it occurred to me that if we ever build spaceships commercially
they'll be built with the consumer in mind, and will possess a
definite 'cool factor.'

Well... Not also commercially, but also for pride and aesthetic
purposes.

If you noticed it, things in the past were designed not only for
functions, but also to make things look good. That's why a vending
machine a century ago looks more like a piece art in comparison of its
current cousin.

Sure, spacecraft are difficult to build presently,

As difficult as building submarines. But the process can be easier if
more submarine building techniques are modified for the use of
building spacecrafts.

and the fact they
work at all is wonderful

Which means that the engineers, the builders, and the operators done a
great job, and also means that the spacecrafts are allowed by God to
work.

- but still, if they're ever built
commercially they will be built as cool as they can be.

Well... If they ever intended to be sold to the mass public instead of
the chosen few. Current millioners can go into orbit probably not due
their buying power, but instead due their political connections
(current space organizations are military or pseudo military
organizations, despite all of their civilian looks).

Which makes
me happy.

Good for you.

So future starships may actually look like TV stage sets just because
those sets are designed to look cool and nothing else.

Well... One could say that Sci-Fi starship concepts are actually
concepts of future starships. Both the ones that were revealed to the
public and the ones that weren't (not even included in one of those
'the making of' materials).

For a bridge of a starship, I recommend using bridge concepts from the
Star Trek franchise. They are quite nice, plus some of the features
that are good in real life, like no windows but instead a viewscreen.

Enterprise NX-01 and USS Defiant from DS9 are probably the only
half-way plausible concepts.

Anyway. It does kinda make one wonder, what if one of the reasons for
the current Enterprise/Star Trek: Enterprise took place as a prequel
(around 150 years before the classic TV series)

110 years. (Kirk was in the 2260's, based on various references in
later series.)

is to provide a sort
of conceptual designs for future spacecrafts in the near future
(around one century into the future).

150 years (it's 2254 this season on ST:E.)

We do know that it had a close
relationship with the military,

No, it didn't. At one point, the Navy looked at Kirk's bridge as a
possible command center, but decided it was too much wasted space for
a warship. It's not clear if this was during or after the original
series was in production.

and the Enterprise interiors are
designed to look like submarines (they tried to do that with Voyager,
but Voyager was still too advanced).

I think Derek is probably laughing his ass off at that suggestion.
Probably the only Trek interiors that look at all (and not much, at
that) like a submarine is the NX-01 Enterprise of the current series.
Certainly, original Trek sets were far removed from contemporary
warships of any design.

And the Star Trek franchise sure
had a close relationship with many real-life space programs.

Not until after-the-fact. There was no participation by NASA in the
original Star Trek series. Even Apollo-era footage in "Assignment:
Earth" was simple stock footage acquired through NBC.

Which one make wonder, if the Soyuz is an alien design modified into
human use.

Only if General Electric got a UFO too. Their Apollo proposal was
quite similar to Soyuz.

Brian

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
EAC wrote:
Sure, spacecraft are difficult to build presently,

As difficult as building submarines. But the process can be easier if
more submarine building techniques are modified for the use of
building spacecrafts.

Current spacecraft are rather harder to build than submarines, because of
one important issue: weight. Spacecraft are far more weight-critical,
and that tends to send the price through the roof. Removal, or at least
drastic easing, of the weight constraint is the big step needed to permit
cheaper large spacecraft.

That's true, but cool control panels and such can fit within this
constraint.


For a bridge of a starship, I recommend using bridge concepts from the
Star Trek franchise...

Perhaps rather selectively. For example, no sane designer would build the
chairs without lap belts and shoulder harnesses, given the frequency with
which violent events throw people around. (I haven't seen the more recent
ST offshoots, but that was certainly an obvious stupidity early on...)

Absolutely true. I'm thinking something more along the lines of
Lawnmower Man...

Which one make wonder, if the Soyuz is an alien design modified into
human use.

Where the hell did this bit of madness come from?

Hardly. It's quite similar to some of the rejected concepts for Apollo.
It follows fairly straightforwardly from the key decision to include a
"mission module", in addition to the reentry vehicle, as part of the
pressurized crew space.

This is a more reasonable conspiracy theory, if you insist on such
things;

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/wastolen.htm

FWIW if the Russians stole the GE design, I thin Kurt Vonnegut was the
channel - this based on conversations I've had with him - although I
think he'd deny it if you asked him directly.


Cheers

William Mook